www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology No More Limbo?

Joe:

I do "sleep like a baby." My wife says they could set off a bomb under my bed or even carry it out into the middle of the street and I'd never wake up.

I tell everyone it's a clear conscience.

BOB

I really appreciate St. Gregory of Nyssa's teachings, on this and on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for Christians to hope and pray for the salvation of all, as it's helped me to deal with some of the issues I've been struggling with during my (self-imposed) exile from the Forum.

I've never understood people who insist that there HAVE to be some human beings in Hell. Whatever happened to "with God all things are possible"?

Theist Gal:

There's a bit more than semantics here. To say that "we hope that all MAY BE SAVED" is a perfectly Christian response and hope.

However, to say that "all WILL BE SAVED" is pure heresy since it denies the fact of the Divine, Perfect Justice of God. To say this is to admit that there is no accountability and that everyone can do as they please without consequence. It cheapens the awesome sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and makes His death a mockery.

We don't say that anyone is in Hell, but we don't deny that it is possible either. For me these questions are best left up to God--they are His Judgments and our response should be the prayer "Your Judgements, O Lord, are right and just; all of them holy."

In Christ,

BOB

To paraphrase another website, apparently Limbo's new expiration date is 2007 or 2008. :rolleyes:

Logos Teen

So God's Justice will ultimately triumph over His Mercy? I always thought that was what the self-sacrifice of Christ was all about - forgiving even those who murdered Him.

Does this mean that at some point He will stop forgiving? Should we follow that example?

(and btw, I never said "all will be saved", so - moot point.)

TG:

You separate two concepts that we need to understand separately but that are, in God, in perfect balance.

To push the concept of mercy to such an extent that it overrides justice leaves us with what has been called "cheap grace" since it calls for no accountablity. We're then left with Luther's idea of "sin mightily, but believe just as mightily." I've even heard it said that it doesn't matter if we sin or not because it's already forgiven--so we don't need to bother ourselves about anything once we are "saved."

But to step back and look at this:

What do you make of the clear statements of Jesus in the Scripture where he states that certain behaviors in people will cause them NEVER to enter the Kingdom?

Matthew 5:20, Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 12:36, Matthew 16:27

Jesus tells us that the wise man builds his house on His words. In other words, the wise man builds his life on the teachings of Jesus as they come from the Church. Certain behaviors separate us from God and His life (grace). A lifetime of such behavior--rejecting God--is not something that one ought to do in order to spend eternity with God. The analogy is to say that I can expect to eat Thanksgiving dinner at your home but spend the rest of the year bad-mouthing you or doing you harm.

ISTM that one sentences oneself to eternal separation from God by developing a patern of separation here and now during our pilgrimage of testing.

What do you make of St. Paul's clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 or 6:9-11? ISTM that these passages are part of the Deposit of Faith. Seems harsh whe one is first learning the Faith and learning how to be different from those in the world, but when it becomes part of a person it is part of who we are as disciples of Christ.

In Christ,

BOB

I just think it's interesting that any time someone dares to suggest that maybe, if we all pray for it and hope for it, God will find a way to get everyone to Heaven after all, someone else has to show us why that's not actually going to happen.

If it makes me a heretic to continue to hope and pray that "all will be well" in the end, then just call me Heretic Gal.

Here is a question that I have:

What kind of God would permit human beings to be conceived only to either damn them or place them in some neutral place of "natural happiness" (whatever that means) because of one sin by some remotely ancient ancestor?

Now, think about this: What kind of God would damn children and teenagers in Somalia and other similar places suffering amidst AIDS and genocide? What kind of God would roast them alive for all eternity because they happened to do something wrong (albeit in an already weakened condition) and they never even had the chance to hear the Gospel from a missionary? In fact, they probably never even had the chance for the thought of hell or the need to embrace some particular religion.

I've given much thought to this. I think that Augustine was wrong. I think that the Councils of Orange and Carthage were wrong. I think the western doctrine of original sin is just plain wrong. It is wrong, because it holds that an omnipotent and allegedly, omnibenevolent, God would permit fetuses and young children to be brought into existence in order to roast them alive for all eternity. I know that "limbo" is supposedly a place of "natural happiness." But again, I say, what could that possibly mean? Human beings were made for communion with God. To say that an infant in limbo lives forever in natural happiness is to put that infant on the level of a dog or cat that lives in natural happiness whenever I feed it and pet it. I'm sorry, but I think the limbo idea was a way to cope with the false Augustinian view of original sin and predestination. Forgive me if offend anyone. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Yet limbo is just an opinion, a teological assumption. With current Latin understanding of original sin, limbo can always be discarded. And that does not mean babies go to hell either.

You may offend someone, Joe, but not me - and I seriously doubt Our Lord is offended either. "Be not afraid" to voice your honest opinion!

I was thinking about this topic overnight (while safely away from my computer) and in spite of the Scriptural prooftexts some have provided here to prove that there are going to be people in Hell, I came up with two thoughts.

First: Catholic doctrine isn't determined by "proof texts". We don't pick a few verses out of the Bible and build a doctrine around them. The Church came before the Scriptures and reserves the right to interpret them. And the Church has never stated definitively that any human soul is in Hell. Therefore, IMHO, we are perfectly free to speculate that no one will go there.

Second: Perhaps the threat of Hell is like a parent's threat to her child - "If you don't behave RIGHT NOW I'm going to [insert horrible threat here]!" Something to keep the kid from misbehaving, yet also something that, if any parent REALLY followed through on, would have Child Protective Services all over them in no time. "Behave yourself or I'll throw you into a pit of fire for all eternity!" says God, our loving Father. Sounds like a "parent threat" to me ...

Third: If you want to get Scriptural, didn't St. Paul say that it's not God's will that any should perish but that all shall come to salvation? And don't we pray in every "Our Father" that God's will be done? And don't we believe that, in the end, God's will WILL be done? So why is it such a stretch to believe that it actually will?

Fourth: Um - probably enough for now. Don't know about you, but I need some coffee! :rolleyes:

Very poor parenting skills. Wise parenting means not making threats you are not willing or able to follow through with, and following through immediately when the set conditions are violated. Otherwise, your authority is degraded and your kids know they can bend or break the rules next time around, too.

If the behavior is getting to be so bad that a threat is required, then the child was sufficiently warned about the behavior and its consequences. If the situation has extenuating circumstances that limit or negate the child's personal responsibility (like the parents have kept the child awake until 2 AM and the child is now acting up), then the wise parent would not make a threat in the first place, realizing that the problem comes from his own choices which affected the child.

Better parenting includes being merciful AND just, which the children will come around to seeing as the loving and respectful choice.

-Wondering
(Who believes a merciful God would not forbid innocent babies from heaven, while a just God would not negate a person's free will decision to separate himself from God, but who does not fathom the mercies of God and can hope that there is a way for those who have rejected God in their lives to have a way to accept Him in their deaths.)

Nevertheless (post-coffee), I stand by my opinions and respect the right of others to differe.

Actually Pius II canonized Sigismundo Malatesta into hell.

Uh ... huh??

Meantime, here is an interesting article on the subject which I actually agree with (mostly) - what do you think?

http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html